Posted
by
Soulskill
on Sunday September 04, 2011 @01:04AM
from the we-put-a-cloud-in-your-cloud dept.

Front page first-timer ge7 writes "Apple's recently announced cloud storage and cloud service platform, iCloud, runs on their main competitor Microsoft's Azure platform and Amazon services. According to The Reg's sources, 'Microsoft insiders see the iCloud deal as a validation of Azure. iCloud puts Azure into a different league, given the brand love for Apple and the Apple management's fanatical attitude to perfection. It is a "huge consumer brand, a great opportunity to get Azure under a very visible workload." ... Apple has had a recent unpleasant experience in providing online services: in a famous memo, Steve Jobs admitted his company had "more to learn about internet services" following the outages and failures of his precursor to iCloud for email, contacts, calendar, photos and other files on MobileMe.'"

The odds of this being true are exceptionally low. The Register isn't exactly known for journalistic integrity.

So, we are to believe that Apple, who has been building out an awfully large and awfully expensive data center in North Carolina, are going to outsource one of their key products to Microsoft and Amazon? Apple will often use third parties for products and services, but this seems way too much like handing the keys to their castle to someone else.

This story is apparently based off of observations made in june [datacenterknowledge.com], when iCloud was first announced, and seems to concern just iMessage [infiniteapple.net] not the entirety of iCloud services. iCloud isn't even out yet, it's still in beta (real beta, not "Google beta".) As always without any kind of official confirmation or strong observable evidence this is just a rumor, but that won't stop everyone from reporting it as fact.

Their new data center seems to aimed at hosting just music and movies, and isn't even ready yet. iPhone 5 is coming out in a month and they need something that works now. Apple's previous cloud services have miserable failed too, so it makes sense to use someone who is already expert in the field. Apple isn't going to be making money out of offering hosting services anyway, they even completely stripped down their server OS. Microsoft and Azure, on the other hand are, and they already have ready-to-go world

Pretty much every statement in your post is completely made up whole cloth. The purpose of the data center has never been stated, whether it's ready has never been stated, MobileMe having "miserable failed" is far from true, and that they "completely stripped down their server OS" is both incorrect and wholly unrelated (Apple uses Sun and Oracle, among others, for their Internet servers).

And finally, that they are using MS and Amazon is completely, 100%, pure rumor based on a supposedly anonymous tip to a disreputable "news" organization.

It's not that this is impossible, far from it. But it's that it's simply a rumor from a single source, and a claim that would certainly need a bit more substantiation to believe.

Azure is PaaS. There's no reason to use it beyond development stages, if they're even doing that. That Apple would use Windows 2008 R2, which is what Azure is built on, to host, is very unlikely. These are ideologically different practices, and Azure's been mostly in beta or "technology preview" for eons. Methinks El Reg has succumbed to rumourmongering. Quelle surprise.

I really don't understand the prevailing wisdom that MobileMe is a failure. The email, calendaring and contacts work brilliantly, and I've been happily using it for over 2 years. It's properly cross-platform, and despite a warning window even works on Internet Explorer 8 at work. The only part that sucked a bit was iDisk, and even that was pretty good (I only dropped it when I realised how great DropBox is). I understand that Jobs was unhappy with MobileMe, but I'm not sure exactly what the issue was ot

it's not impossible. Apple uses akamai for CDN.. so why not use AWS and Azure. Just because the compete in the consumer space doesn't mean they can't have partnerships for the infrastructure. More datacenters = better redundancy, and geo diversity also saves a lot of traffic on the backbones.. (seems inefficient, for example, for a California resident to download their music servers on the east coast.. even more so for customers overseas).

Sigh. This was reported a few days after the iCloud apps started appearing in beta. It was reported by various Apple rags. It was later confirmed by several sources. This isn't hard to check. Connect the device to your network, check to see what sites it accesses when storing stuff in the cloud. Given the age of this story, if it wasn't true, any idiot with a router and an iCloud account could have shot it down long ago. It hasn't been, quite the opposite, it has been verified again and again. Something any

Who thinks Apple will confirm or deny which cloud service, if any, will host iCloud?

If anything, Apple wouldn't.

Now, I can believe some Microsoft PR guy thought about it and came up with the idea of spreading a rumour that it would use Azure, precisely because Apple wouldn't say...

The bigger question is 'who cares?'. Apple has nothing that competes with Azure so why would this be an issue? WP7 is hardly competing with iOS on the iPhone, MS are barely a blip in the tablet space and Apple's revenues primarily come from iOS rather than the only product really in competition with MS which is OSX. It doesn't seem much like Microsoft and Apple are in much competition with eachother at all these days.

Now, I can believe some Microsoft PR guy thought about it and came up with the idea of spreading a rumour that it would use Azure

Yeah, because it is sooooo hard to check what sites a device connects to when storing stuff. Were you born this dumb or did someone make you this dumb by hitting you repeatedly over the head with a hammer?

I'm surprised that Microsoft and Amazon apparently agreed not to publicize this. While I don't really care what Apple is using behind the scenes in iCloud - it's not like Apple's a serious player in server space, after all - I wouldn't think they'd have the leverage to dictate these sorts of terms with either company. Seriously, what are they going to do, walk away from the negotiating table? Who else could do it?

hmm - well, seeing as the iCloud is still in beta and the service appears to only run iMessage on Azure, it could be that Apple is still deciding which host platform to run on - in which cash, if MS started shouting 'look Apple uses MS tech' then Apple could so easily shift everything to Amazon and make MS look really stupid.

Leverage is quite simple. "We'll use your software and pay you for it if you sign a statement that you won't tell anyone. If you don't sign the statement, no sale, no money". It's not Microsoft doing a deal like that, it will be some sales droid hired to sell Azure licenses who will get a nice commission from the sale, so he or she will do what it takes to get the deal and their commission.

When you are an adult other things than principles become important, like earning more money than you will ever need by whatever means possible. It's hard to explain, but using you opponent's products can then suddenly make sense.

Why would Apple build a brand new <a href="http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06/01/apples-new-data-center-is-visible-at-last-from-space/">multimillion-dollar data facility</a>, only to farm out their biggest and most high-profile internet services to external parties?

Seriously. On the hardware front, they killed the X-serve and have nothing else that remotely is a workable solution for real high end, high density servers. Mac Minis are fine for small offices or homes that are messing with tiny servers, they aren't what you need for a cloud infrastructure.

On the software front their OS leaves something to be desired in the server arena but more importantly they have no real virtualization solution. You can only virtualize OS-X on OS-X so any of the bare metal solutions like vSphere are out, and the software for MacOS is decidedly consumer oriented like Fusion and Parallels.

So Apple's own technology, at present, is not at all suited for a cloud type system. For that you need a bunch of high power, high density servers that you can run VMs on so you can provision things as needed at a high speed.

Remember the big thing that separates a "cloud" from just a bunch of servers is the flexibility and provisioning. You go to a normal server host like, say, Pair networks and they can get you a server in fairly short order, a day or less probably. However if you want a bunch that'll take time as they'd have to order the hardware. You also pay per month regardless of usage because the hardware is there powers on using resources. With Amazon EC2 you can get not just a server in minutes, but thousands. You also can pay more based on usage, because idle servers don't have to take up resources. This is possible only because it is all virtual, and an extremely competent virtual setup.

Now maybe they fix that, or maybe they build a data centre with someone else's technology (their was a time they liked AIX, maybe they do that again). However that takes time and if they need shit now, well Amazon and Microsoft are two of the big ones that can deliver it.

At any rate right now, Apple isn't really in a good position to run their own cloud service.

*YOU* can't virtualize OS X on vSphere, but they can. Because they own they software, they can do whatever they want with it.

I don't think anyone is surprised that they aren't running it on Mac OS X Server; they are surprised that they are (allegedly) running it on a MS product. It is well known that Apple hosts it's own services on Sun, Oracle, and (maybe) HP products. There long-existing web products (eg. the iTunes store) don't run on racks and racks of Xserves, if that's what you think.

Why wouldn't they be in a good position to run their own cloud service? Again, you need to throw out your assumption that their cloud service might be run on OS X and Mac hardware.

Testing? Who knows? And why does it matter anyway what Apple runs iCloud on? Apple will use whatever service makes iCloud good enough to encourage more hardware sales, as that is what Apple cares about.

They wanted to get it out there in time and it was probably faster to throw something together on Azure instead of setting up their own servers. I'm sure iCloud is what Apple had in mind when they started building the huge data centers in North Carolina and I'm willing to bet Azure is only a temporary solution and eventually everything will be transferred to their new data center. They probably didn't want to risk another Mobile Me type release. Still, it's a tip of the hat to MS.

Under Wikipedia for Azure: Microsoft has stated that, per the Patriot Act, the USA government can have access to the data even if the hosted company is not American and the data resides outside the USA.[20]

I am surprised this pure FUD got modded up. The Patriot Act affects every US based company and Apple would have to turn the data over even if they hosted it themselves.

"Any data which is housed, stored or processed by a company, which is a U.S. based company or is wholly owned by a U.S. parent company, is vulnerable to interception and inspection by U.S. authorities."

You are Apple. What would it cost you to get as good a server internally? How can you leverage your iCloud threat-to-make in order to negotiate purchase price of the Buy? You are MS. What price do you set for a competitor with high volume and a possibly inferior product, who may decide to invest in making their product competitive with yours?

Heh, not surprising really. Apple will do what they have to do. If it requires using Micro$oft services they'll bite the bullet and do it. You can bet somewhere they've got a team working on an alternative that gives them total control. Apple is all about control. This is just a compromise they were forced to so they can provide the kind of service they need until their own solution is ready.

What does it matter? Why shouldn't Apple use Azure for iCloud, assuming this old rumor is even true? Apple isn't offering a cloud computing platform for third parties (just a data service for consumers), so it's not like this is in competition with one of their own products. Apple just wants to sell hardware.

Remember Steve's quote about MS being trucks? So why not use them as a big truck. Back end. Where they belong. It's a giant public slap in the face to Microsot that know one else gets! Be our server slaves, stay in the closet, and let us (Apple) take care of the rest.

But isn't that the whole idea behind Azure? Microsoft wants to be the big truck people rely on behind the scenes.

I'm not a Microsoft fan - I've tried to remove their products from my life as much as possible - but I see this as a big win for them.

Wow! That is huge fanboyism to suggest that by Apple choosing to use a Microsoft product that this would somehow be a slap in the face for Microsoft. Ha ha Microsoft, you lose because we chose to use your services.

Was their ever a chance that Apple would have considered using anything other than a back-end product from Microsoft? Did you expect that Apple would ever consider choosing Windows on the next Mac or Windows Phone to run their next iPhone or something?

It's a giant public slap in the face to Microsot that know one else gets! Be our server slaves, stay in the closet, and let us (Apple) take care of the rest.

This is what it looks like to be in the end stages of being an Apple fanboy. You actually believe it's a "slap in the face" to Microsoft for Apple to run a portion of their business on an MS product. No awareness at all that Apple has to pay Microsoft for the privilege. No awareness that by Apple choosing a Microsoft product, they are saying tacitly

Based on job postings over the years, it's more than likely a combination of various Unixes and Linux. It's definitely NOT Windows (or OS X for that matter).

Speaking of, if you search their job listings for the word "iCloud", almost every hit explicitly mentions Linux or UNIX, and most of the rest mention Perl, Ruby, Python, and other UNIXy applications. I didn't look at every single one of them, but the only one I saw that mentioned Windows at all was for testing the sync to iCloud functionally on Windows. I don't think I'm buying this story.

The Register can claim anything they want, they provide no proof for any of it.

And as for the "why", that depends on the reasons - are Apple hedging their bets? Are they in a trial period? Are they just balancing load across multiple independent providers?

When you distribute storage, you do it for any number of reasons, and those reasons influence how you do the distribution. When the data itself doesn't actually affect the application, and s merely data being managed, it doesn't have to be anywhere near

What you have described is a system that not only uses two providers but uses each of them for distinct function, each of them critical. So if either has performance problems, the whole system has performance problems, and if either of them fails, the whole system fails.

Apple does a lot of stupid things, but they are not THAT stupid. "Striping" would be a better option than that.

"Lest you forget, MS kept Apple alive with a huge cash infusion when they were about to go under."

No, Apple was not about to go under. The $150 million was a token gesture of solidarity and it purchased non-voting shares. Apple had BILLIONS of dollars in the bank at the time. Apple was rudderless, which is what led to Jobs returning and reforging the sword that was broken, but Apple didn't need Microsoft's cash--they needed Office to be supported.

The point back then was to reestablish customer/developer confidence in the platform. The money itself wasn't the point, the point was to tell them that Apple won't go under next week, so it's still ok to buy things from them and develop for their platform. It worked very well, most likely much better than Microsoft had hoped.

Okay, that's it, I'm holding this thread open till someone seriously explains how the Bildberg group conspired to make sure it just LOOKED like Apple took any help from Microsoft because otherwise you'd just DIE of shame omigaw.

... and streaming videos, music, mobile apps, and soon tablet hardware. These aren't as big a splash as the ebook market yet, but these things have a way of booming once they hit a certain point in the adoption curve. Especially when some of them come for free with a service that people are already more than willing to pay for on its own (Amazon Prime). And iTunes has been a direct competitor with Amazon for years in terms of pitting digital

Apple and MS enemies? Of course not! They are extremely good allies, both scared to death of Google's Android! The mobile market is going to surpass the PC market by a fair margin, and Apple and MS do NOT want Google dominating it. Hence, both are trying to bury Android under patent lawsuits - patents that they have sometimes acquired together.

Lest you forget, MS kept Apple alive with a huge cash infusion when they were about to go under. They need each other. They're best frenemies.

After all these years, most people still don't know what the reasons were for the buying of non-voting stock. First of all, Apple wasn't "about to go under." Everyone makes the same mistake in repeating this myth that Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy. Second, the reason Microsoft bought the stock and continued Office was part of an agreement over the theft of Quic [roughlydrafted.com]

I'd rather call it closed vs open. Or at least those that push open source and openness vs those who don't.It will be interesting who'll win.Personally, I hope no one does, competition is best for consumers.

I was going to say, what idiot believes Microsoft is Apple's main competitor now? Microsoft and Apple have been buddy buddy for some years now, both teaming up against Google, which is a shame, because both of them are individually bigger than Google, so could just compete on their merits if they were so inclined.

Apple and Microsoft have long been working together on things like IP strategy and keeping down competitors, it's not suprising to see cooperation in other areas too really.

Microsoft and Apple have been buddy buddy for some years now, both teaming up against Google, which is a shame

It was Google who decided to end the alliance with Apple (which was forged against MS) and directly compete against Apple after gathering lots of insight Eric Schmidt gathered when he was on Apple's board of directors.

Everybody knows that Steve Jobs is a very emotional leader. So when Google backstabbed Apple he didn't just shrug it off as mere business tactic. Although, by Jobs' standards he reacted very calm. Bing was added to Safari etc. in addition to Google, unlike the time when one GPU maker (can't re

Totally. When I go to the store, Apple's will magically forces me to buy their hardware, and Microsoft's will forces me to buy their software. I definitely don't have a choice in the matter. Excuse me while I browse the open source repository for the Google search engine and use Flash-free Chrome, because they're such an open company and all.

Microsoft was required to buy non-voting stock in Apple as part of a settlement over the theft of Quicktime code. It's amazing that, after all these years, people still think Microsoft swooped in to "save" Apple.

All this was discussed last time (yep, this is an old rumor). Assuming it's an even true, Apple is free to use Azure and EC2 to get iCloud up and running and then move it to their own data centers later on. Or, maybe they'll just keep using what they're using now. It doesn't matter except to sites like this that treat companies as warring tribes to aid in battle. Apple doesn't give a shit what they're using as long as it helps them sell more Apple hardware. That's the point of iCloud in the first place.

They also don't have a phone they direct-sell either. Don't know why you felt like taking the opportunity to blast WP7 but not Windows Tablet Edition, despite them both being essentially the same thing...